Bill22108131 said:
I hope you are right Sam in that crews are not reduced. The plan when the Squadrons on the east coast slowly reduced from 7 to 6 to 5 then finally to 4 crews was to bump back up to 5 crews in 2003. That year has come and gone and both east coast Sqns are still at four crews. I do not have a lot of faith that the incorporation of 415 Sqn into 405 Sqn will include a long term steady state at 8 line crews. History would support my lack of faith.
Line crews are not supposed to be reduced. In fact, I heard a rumble about 10 crews, but I can't confirm that at all...it was a tangential statement made by someone not directly in the MP world. This is, amongst other things, a reallocation of O-5 and some O-4 positions to offset the stand-up of the CFAWC (CF Aerospace Warfare Center) in Trenton. The same intent for TAL/Tpt and Ftr. Sad from a Sqn pride/history thing, but it's happened to others in the far and near past, and it may happen to more.
On another topic in this thread...
Bill22108131 said:
As I sit here I wonder why you would ponder if it was good or not. Picture if you will, an airborne asset with 8 hours overhead time that could provide an all spectrum look 100 kms around your OP (IR, EO, EW, ground mapoping RADAR). All vehicles, generators, and recent trenching could be passed to you via a datalink download. Your life would become so much easier than the 3 kms you can surveille and patrol. Each Aurora crew will equal 8 hours on station with a forward operating base (FOB) nearby. It will take 5-6 Aurora crews to provide 24/7 over a moderate period of time. More crews or quick rotations to cover longer. My brother is in Kabul, RCD recce. He knows the value of aircraft support. TUAV is not the sole solution.
Bill, you noted you'd look forward to comments, so here goes:
- One might reasonably assume CP140 would need some kind of Self-Defence Suite (SDS) to go over top or slant to a TAI. When does SDS happen in AIMP?
- Link-4, Link-11 and Link-22 don't pass imagery particularly well. Link-16 is bandwidth limited. CP140 could use TCDL to link with existing coallition tactical datalink download but it's not part of AIMP. How will such download be addressed?
- 5-6 Aurora crews to provide 24/7 over a moderate time...more or quicker rots to cover longer periods...hmmmm...that's starting to add up fairly quickly.
For the record, I too would like to see 140 as part of the ISR bit, however, due consideration must be given to the degree that it can contribute in an effective and reasonably affordable way. Re-badging something with a new moniker but mated with a non-encompassing/incomplete upgrade in required areas may not be the best way of doing things.
You are exactly right that TUAV (in current CF terms, this means a system employed primarily at the Brigade-sized or formation-level) is not the sole solution. The solution also includes unit-level (by that I mean battalion-size), sub-unit-level, and det-level UAV capability and, as an Air Force guy, I professionally believe that at least the last two (sub-unit, det) should entirely be generated and employed by the Army. While we're at it, folks considering provision of C4ISR should also take a look at the case for equipping the relatively economical (fuel, maintenance, crewing, flexibility, responsiveness, tactical footprint) platform such as the Griffon with its existing EW suite and an improved EO/IR suite, to provide more of an "
R + s" capability, fully supportive of an J/LFISTAR plan which would clearly include the UAV "r &
S", all as part of the (combined) joint task force's combined recce team. Ask your bro if he'd like to also have a section of Griffies equipped to stand overhead or look forward 20km's as terrain would permit, fully integrated into networked fires as part of the armed recce team...I can't see a Dragoon saying he'd always prefer to take the 140 orbiting at 30,000+ feet over folks who use the same TTPs and BTS and whose faces he sees in Julien on a daily basis...
FWIW, food for thought.
Cheers,
Duey
